WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1429/97 by Marco FORMENTINI to the Commission. Commission inquiries regarding the project for the construction of new premises for La Scala, Milan
Date: 1997-04-16
Institutions: European Parliament, FORMENTINI
Subjects: Lombardy, appeals by private individuals, application of EU law, award of contract, building, case-law (EU), complaint to the Commission, infringement of EU law, performing arts, public contract

C 45/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

The Commission therefore does not consider the preparation and adoption of a Directive to be the appropriate
response to the real problems encountered.

(1)  OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.
(2)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(3)  OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(98/C 45/36)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1429/97

by Marco Formentini (NI) to the Commission

(16 April 1997)

Subject: Commission inquiries regarding the project for the construction of new premises for La Scala, Milan

On 17 March 1997, in a letter signed by Mr Mogg of DG XV, the Commission asked the Italian Government for
clarification  regarding  the  above  scheme,  which  had  formed  the  subject  of  agreements  between  Milan  City
Council, the Board of La Scala and private entities. The Commission(cid:146)s attention had been drawn to the matter by
complaints about the project which various professional organizations in Milan had submitted after having made
unsuccessful  attempts  to  block  the  council(cid:146)s  decision  by  appealing  first  to  the  supervisory  body,  then  the
Administrative Tribunal of the Lombardy Region and the Council of State. All these bodies had ruled that the
council(cid:146)s  decision  fully  complied  with  both  Italian  law  and  Community  law  and  rejected  the  application  for
suspension of the project.

On the basis of the above complaints alone › and thus without taking any account of the views expressed by the
relevant regional and national authorities › the Commission decided to ask for clarification. The details provided
by the parties concerned, including Milan City Council, demonstrated that the arguments put forward by the
professional  associations  were  groundless.  There  is  nothing  particularly  unusual  about  the  above  situation,
except for the unwarranted zeal shown by the Commission.

I would thus ask the Commission, which must realize that, owing to the extreme complexity of the project, a
number of stages of which have already been completed, it is essential to meet the appointed deadlines, why it
felt it necessary to contact the Italian authorities with a view to determining whether all further activity should be
suspended?

How does it justify interfering in such a disruptive manner in the affairs of a free city of the European Union
before even being in possession of all the facts?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1997)

By  the  letter  to  which  the  Honourable  Member  refers,  the  Commission  sought  clarification  from  the  Italian
authorities  of  the  procedure  followed  in  the  case  of  the  Scala  2001  project  since  the  complaints  to  the
Commission,  which  were  supported  by  official  documentation,  had  brought  to  light  certain  aspects  of  the
procedure that gave rise to doubts as to their conformity with Community legislation on public procurement.

In  accordance  with  its  obligations  under  Article  155  of  the  Treaty,  the  Commission  has  asked  the  Italian
Government to provide the clarification necessary to verify that the complaints are well founded.

As regards the request to intervene in the procedure that it addressed to the Italian Government, the Commission
would point out that, in accordance with its normal practice in such cases and with the relevant case-law of the
Court  of  Justice  (see  in  particular  the  Order  of  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  22  April  1994  in
Case  C-87/94),  it  requested  the  Italian  authorities  to  refrain  from  taking  any  measure  that  might  prejudice
compliance with Community law.

Such a request is designed to draw the attention of the authorities of a Member State to the risks attaching to the
adoption of further measures that could interfere with the rights of individuals in the event of an infringement of
Community law being subsequently discovered. In the aforementioned case-law, the Court emphasized that the
Commission  must  act  in  a  manner  such  that  the  awarding  authority  is  made  aware  that  it  is  pursuing  the
procedure in question at its own risk